Goodread Review: As Nature Made Him
As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl by John Colapinto
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
I first encountered David Reimer’s story as a kid: my mother was getting her special ed certification and brought home a textbook on Child Psychology. At the end of one of the chapters, there was a brief sidebar about the case, which detailed its success, save for an incident when the little boy-turned-girl in question threw her panties over a neighbor’s fence.
But, as I learned through John Colapinto’s powerful As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised a Girl, that rosy-if-mischievous picture couldn’t have been further from the truth. David, born Bruce Reimer, was indeed raised a girl, Brenda, when doctors gave his parents no other feasible options after a botched circumcision at eight months old. Though this case was often touted by his doctor, John Money, as immutable proof that gender was completely a social construction, the truth is that Brenda had an incredibly unhappy childhood, marked by social difficulties and competition with her twin brother, Brian, and marred further by disturbing therapeutic sessions (which included forced viewings of pornography and graphic sexual conversations) administered by Money.
Colapinto’s account is vividly and soundly written. It’s an incredibly fast-read and has the juicy journalistic quality of a good episode of Dateline, not to mention a similarly horrific car-crash-on-the-highway feel. Colapinto’s strong descriptions of David and his family are incredibly sympathetic; when, after finishing the book, I learned that both David and his brother Brian died at their own hands in 2004 and 2002 respectively, I fully felt the loss of their lives that had, I suppose, begun nearly four decades earlier.
Before the publication of As Nature Made Him, the then-anonymous case of the Reimers was often cited by feminists as proof that it was nurture, not nature—upbringing, and not sex—that determines gender. The sad truth is that, had doctors been more open-minded about what constitutes a “boy” or a “man”, David Reimer would have never been subjected to castration, would never have had to endure therapy sessions with Money where he was forced to pose naked with his brother in order to model “proper gender roles”, would never have had to struggle in school and at home with the conviction that he wasn’t really a girl. The motives of the doctors were reductionist, as David himself says: “It just seems that they implied that you’re nothing if your penis is gone. The second you lose that, you’re nothing, and they’ve got to do surgery and hormones to turn you into something. Like you’re a zero. It’s like your whole personality, everything about you is all directed—all pinpointed—toward what’s between his legs. And to me, that’s ignorant. I don’t have the kind of education that these scientists and doctors and psychologists have, but to me it’s very ignorant.” (262)
I do think that there’s a feminist lesson to be found in Reimer’s story: namely, that prescriptivist attitudes toward gender and sex are problematic, and that forcing gender models (and certainly genital surgery) on young children who cannot express their feelings about their own gender or sex is a dangerous game.
Phoebe
Phoebe is a 20-something writer who lives in New York State with her husband and cat. She is a dork, not a geek or a nerd.
Her debut novel, Starglass, will be released from Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers in Summer 2013.
3 comments
"Hindsight is 20/20." I don't think it's so much whether the doctors were more open-minded, but rather if they knew enough about human physiology to determine that their decision was the correct one. In other words, had doctors known that gender roles cannot be modeled simply by psychological force, alterations in physiology, and gross changes in hormone levels, they wouldn't have done it. Its failure in effectiveness makes it a wrong and incorrect practice.And sadly, stories like Reimer are needed in order to know whether or not those decisions are effective or not.
And sadly, stories like Reimer are needed in order to know whether or not those decisions are effective or not.Hi Anon,If you read the book, you'll find that not all of the concurrent (animal) research agreed with Dr. Money's conclusions–and Money himself was completely mum on the poor outcome of Reimer's case. In fact, he later recommended identical treatments for subsequent patients. Lack of information is one thing; willful obtuseness because it fits ones' pet theories is another.But my biggest objection is to the reaction of initial doctors–who told David's mother and father (who had a ninth and seventh grade level of education, respectively) that there was no chance that their son would live a happy life as an otherwise intact mail whose penis had been damaged. That is, in fact, a problem with being open-minded (or not) about the full spectrum of gender. Common wisdom among doctors of the time was that it was easier to "make a hole than a pole", and many decisions–not just regarding David but also his intersexed contemporaries–were made in accordance with that. Cheryl Chase, an intersex woman who was given a full clitorectomy in the hopes of creating more "normal" looking female genitalia, was another interesting (and upsetting) example.Phoebe
Hi Phoebe, thanks for the response. I'm curious about the book, and after your review I'll try to pick it up.There's some concern though on the fairness of the story, and hopefully you might be able to shed some light on it (you mentioned it read like a Dateline expose, which, to be honest, aren't exactly completely fair either). You mention that not all of the research supported Money's ideas. I'm not condoning his hiding of data (I'm curious how true this is considering it appears no real inquiry had been made about his data) or of attempting to do similar things to similar patients after how badly Reimer's case had been. But did at least some of the research support Money's view at the start of the experiment? If that is true, then I can at least understand some grounds for the treatments.I'm still not sure that's a problem with being open-minded. The doctors telling the parents David had only one option is a terrible thing (though I'm curious to know whether the doctors really meant they thought it was the best choice and the parents assumed it was the only choice). But it can be seen as being very open-minded to ask an inquisitive question and then attempt to answer that question using techniques and experiments. The very unfortunate consequence is that people like David and Cheryl are essentially guinea pigs for future generations. It'd be closed-minded for doctors to continually do the procedure even when it is shown no benefit, or to hide data, or to say that something is working out great when it's quite the opposite (as in Money's case). But I don't think one can effectively ask questions regarding the spectrum of gender roles without actually trying it with people. Even with the use of animal models, psychological studies can be difficult given the extensive complexity of human interactions.